[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
225 views2 pages

Uy vs. Centro Ceramica Corporation

Petitioner Jhorizaldy Uy was hired as a full-time sales executive by respondent Centro Ceramica Corporation under a 6-month probationary period. Uy alleged that he was orally informed of his termination by the company president due to "insubordination" after being asked to assume a new position in marketing. Uy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was dismissed by the labor arbiter but later reinstated by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals then reversed the NLRC's ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that Uy was illegally dismissed as there was no clear valid cause for termination and lack of due process, as filing a complaint for illegal dismissal soon after suggests he did

Uploaded by

Marie Chielo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
225 views2 pages

Uy vs. Centro Ceramica Corporation

Petitioner Jhorizaldy Uy was hired as a full-time sales executive by respondent Centro Ceramica Corporation under a 6-month probationary period. Uy alleged that he was orally informed of his termination by the company president due to "insubordination" after being asked to assume a new position in marketing. Uy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was dismissed by the labor arbiter but later reinstated by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals then reversed the NLRC's ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that Uy was illegally dismissed as there was no clear valid cause for termination and lack of due process, as filing a complaint for illegal dismissal soon after suggests he did

Uploaded by

Marie Chielo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Uy vs.

Centro Ceramica Corporation


G.R. No. 174631
October 19, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner Jhorizaldy Uy was hired by respondent Centro Ceramica
Corporation as full-time sales executive under probationary employment for
6 months. Uy alleged that on February 19, 2002 after their weekly sales
meeting, he was informed by his superior, Sales Supervisor Richard Agcaoili,
that he was to assume a new position in the marketing department, to which
he replied that he will think it over. That same day, he was summoned by
Sy and Garcia for a closed-door meeting during which Sy informed him of the
termination of his services due to insubordination and advised him to turn
over his samples and files immediately. Petitioner further narrated that on
February 22, 2002, he turned over company samples, accounts and
receivables to Agcaoili. Thereafter, he did not report for work anymore.
Thereafter, Uy received a memo from respondent company stating his
failure to meet the quota for sales executive. With this, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondent company. Labor Arbiter
Salinas dismissed petitioners complaint on the basis of his finding that it was
petitioner who opted not to report for work. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC
which reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling. Respondents elevated the case to
the CA which reversed the NLRC and dismissed petitioners complaint.
Hence, this instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was dismissed by the respondents or voluntarily
severed his employment by abandoning his job.
Ruling:
Petitioner Uy was dismissed by the respondent company. In this case, the
evidence on record suggests that petitioner did not resign; he was orally
dismissed by Sy. It is this lack of clear, valid and legal cause, not to mention
due process, that made his dismissal illegal, warranting reinstatement and
the award of backwages. Moreover, the filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal just three weeks later is difficult to reconcile with voluntary
resignation. Had petitioner intended to voluntarily relinquish his
employment after being unceremoniously dismissed by no less than the
company president, he would not have sought redress from the NLRC and
vigorously pursued this case against the respondents. When there is no
showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment,

the law considers it a case of illegal dismissal. Furthermore, Article 4 of the


Labor Code expresses the basic principle that all doubts in the interpretation
and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the
workingman.

You might also like